Guwahati, May 10: The Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act while searching the accused.
The single judge bench of the High Court, during a judgment on Tuesday, observed that the recovery of narcotic drugs from a bag carried by a person would attract Section 50 of the NDPS Act, if, in course of such search, the body of the suspect was also searched.
“There is ample evidence that body search of the appellant was undertaken. Therefore, failure to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in course of search, vitiates the seizure and the consequent conviction,” the court observed.
It may be noted that the appellant and a juvenile accused were searched in a place near Daulasal Natun Chowk Bazar in lower Assam’s Nalbari district on August 29, 2011, following which 190 grams of brown sugar was allegedly recovered from their possession.
The trial court had on April 27, 2021 convicted the appellant-accused under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7(seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs 70,000.
Notably, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, the prosecution side had examined 12 witnesses.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court had passed the impugned judgment.
The appellant assailed the impugned judgment and order before the High Court.
The High Court held that the prosecution evidence, regarding recovery of narcotic drugs from the appellant, fails to inspire confidence and that the noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has vitiated the search and subsequent conviction.
“Recovery of narcotic drugs from a bag carried by a person would attract Section 50 of the NDPS Act, if, in course of such search, the body of the suspect is also searched. In the case in hand, there is ample evidence that body search of the appellant was undertaken. Therefore, failure to comply Section 50 of the NDPS Act in course of search, vitiates the seizure and the consequent conviction,” the court observed.
“Under the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution evidence, regarding recovery of narcotic drugs from the appellant Abdul Hai, failed to inspire confidence. Furthermore, the noncompliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has vitiated the search and subsequent conviction,” it said.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and acquitted the appellant.
